Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?
 

The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

jackthelad. Thank you for the apology, it's much appreciated. I wasn't referring earlier to the 'Anything Goes' forum but to another place which harbours someone who has been stalking me for the best part of two years.

If you receive an email when someone replies to a message of yours, it's because you opted to do so. Such emails don’t come from either Shirina or myself but are automated. Maybe you deleted, without reading, the email which I sent you on 23 February - which among other matters congratulated you on your 60th wedding anniversary - because you thought it was one such message. I have already sent you that email again, and I suggest we put all this to bed and move on.

Thanks again for your response.

I apologise to members for this deviation from the thread topic.

Sorry to be off topic again, Ivan I have not received your e-mail only two from cuttingedge about this thread, so it is possible I never received your other e-mail, but thank you for remembering our Diamond wedding anniversary that will be on the 21st this coming Thursday.

Ivan - well done for getting the forum open again.

The deficit is the difference between what the government receives in taxes to what is pays out

blueturando. Thank you for explaining the difference between deficit and debt. A lot of people don’t understand that, including Cameron. I’m glad you didn’t repeat the Tory assertion that the deficit has been cut by 25%, which is very much a matter of conjecture:-

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/budget_deficit_public_sector_net_borrowing_current_quarter-28563

the welfare bill is way too high

We’ve discussed this value judgement at least twice before, when you used dubious figures which included the state retirement pension, but still you try to pass it off as a fact. In the decade prior to the recession, spending on benefits had shown the longest period of stability in the history of the welfare state:-

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/pdf/Mythbusting.pdf

for some, benefits have become a dependency culture

Any evidence to support that piece of ‘Daily Mail’ bigotry? No, I thought not, because it’s rubbish, but that doesn’t stop you and your mate repeating it over and over again.

Research by the DWP looked at the benefit claims history, going back four years, of people who made a claim for unemployment benefit in 2010-11. For a sample group of 32-33 year olds who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance in 2010-11, 40% of them had not made a claim before in that period. 63% had spent no more than six months of the previous four years on JSA. Almost four out of five claimants had spent at least three quarters of the past four years off the dole. The idea that these claimants are 'trapped' in a 'dependency culture' is absurd. There are more details here which you might care to bear in mind before trotting out that disgusting and pernicious lie any more:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/myth-welfare-scrounger

the government is not making cuts to benefits, it's keeping the increase at 1% The same as the increase in public sector pay.

A 1% increase in benefits is a cut in real terms. After being so eloquent over the difference between deficit and debt, why pretend to be ignorant of the distinction between cash increases and real increases?

I know it's hard for Labour peeps to be honest, but please try harder next time

LOL. That really is rich coming from a Tory, someone who supports what must be the biggest bunch of liars ever to hold power. Cameron and Duncan Smith never stop lying. Every week at PMQT, Cameron claims that there are 1 million new private sector jobs (many of which are part-time low paid jobs with zero hours contracts), conveniently overlooking the fact that at least 196,000 of them are reclassified public sector jobs. Nearly all Tory propaganda is based on a handful of lies and myths, like your “dependency culture” claim above.

the finance industry would have know qualms in moving somewhere else.

Well, there won’t be much point in the bankers moving to any of the EU countries, since if they do they’ll have to scrimp and scrape with the help of bonuses which can't exceed double their paltry salaries. There’s no point in them going to Switzerland either, where even more stringent rules will be in place after a recent referendum.

I don’t see many of them leaving. You forget that most people have roots, family connections, children at schools – why have an upheaval when you’re already comfortably off? And if they really are inclined to leave, let them. It was reckless and greedy people in the finance industry who caused the global credit crunch, and if they do leave, I’ve no doubt there will be plenty of other bright young things waiting to take their places. I’d go even further and impose a tiny financial transactions tax (under 1%) on trades in shares, bonds and derivatives, which could raise about £20 billion a year. 23 of the 27 EU states voted last year for such a tax, but not the UK, not while we have a PM who divides his time between living in the pockets of bankers and press barons.

Well said Ivan. If I was in charge I would tell the bankers to EFF off and do not come back, after what they have done to this country while they still get their huge salary and even bigger bonuses - while the rest of us have to got without decent pay rises and to have enough money to cover our bills without having to go to food banks by the end of the month to feed families, while the bankers MOAN about their bonuses being capped, I am sure there are plenty out there that would not moan with just the bankers' salary, never mind the bonuses.

Good post, Ivan.......and thanks for the links.

Where indeed? Ed Miliband seems to have positioned his Party just right over the Leveson matter.

Ivan wrote:-
And if they really are inclined to leave, let them. It was reckless and greedy people in the finance industry who caused the global credit crunch, and if they do leave, I’ve no doubt there will be plenty of other bright young things waiting to take their places.

Basic laws of supply & demand dictate that for every fatcat or corporation that leaves, several others will form to take advantage of the opportunity their departure creates. And likely to pay more tax and employ more people.

for some, benefits have become a dependency culture

Any evidence to support that piece of ‘Daily Mail’ bigotry? No, I thought not, because it’s rubbish, but that doesn’t stop you and your mate repeating it over and over again.

I love how you roll out the old faithfull 'Bigotry and/or Racist' when things don't go your way. These terms are always use by the left as a 'get out clause' for any real debate.
If you think what I said was rubbish then you are living on a different planet to most people in the UK and constant denials and lies will not make the truth go away Ivan

" These terms are always use by the left as a 'get out clause' for any real debate"

Or, more likey, that the denial of them is the customary 'get out clause' of the Right...?

Just a few examples to read of this 'MADE UP' phenomenon. Do I keep having to give you fellas political lessons or will you learn to keep up

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ending-the-benefits-dependency-culture-7573522.html

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Final%20Report/WWG-Final-Recommendations-Report-22-February-2011.pdf


http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw41Dependency.pdf


http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/dependency-culture

John Mann MP has welcomed today’s speech by Ed Milliband saying that he is the “first Labour leader to attack our system of benefits dependency culture.”

IVAN....Even Labour and Millipede don't agree with you

http://www.johnmannmp.com/bassetlaw-mp-welcomes-milibands-attack-on-benefits-dependency-cu

One suspects that folk will take 'political lessons' from the honourable gentleman, as willingly as they would have a red-hot poker stuck up their bottoms...

It will be nice to see companies 'get out of the benefits dependency culture' but I'm afraid that I cannot see a time when they will be willing to pay more than the minimum wage for most of their workforce......

Phil Hornby wrote:-
One suspects that folk will take 'political lessons' from the honourable gentleman, as willingly as they would have a red-hot poker stuck up their bottoms...

LOL. Rest assured that I will be replying in some detail when I have the time. “The politics of envy”, “the welfare bill is unaffordable” (but tax cuts to millionaires, costing the Treasury £2.7 billion, aren't) and “Labour caused the mess” are just three of the 'get out clauses' we have to suffer endlessly from Tories. Was there really, as Angela Eagle, asked on 'Question Time', a recession in 38 countries because Labour spent money on schools and hospitals?

Just for starters, let's consider this source:-
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ending-the-benefits-dependency-culture-7573522.html

So because an anonymous comment section in Boris Johnson’s pet newspaper used the expression ‘dependency culture’ more than a year ago, it becomes a fact, does it?? ATOS throws people off benefits when they’re terminally ill, receiving chemotherapy or short of limbs, and that “suggests they are capable of work”? Anyone who accepts that shyte must either be plain stupid or very callous.

Phil Hornby wrote:One suspects that folk will take 'political lessons' from the honourable gentleman, as willingly as they would have a red-hot poker stuck up their bottoms...

In other words PH do it to others but not to the gentleman with the red hot poker stuck up his ASS.

If you think what I said was rubbish then you are living on a different planet to most people in the UK and constant denials and lies will not make the truth go away Ivan

blueturando. “Most people” are always right, are they? More people buy ‘The Sun’ than any other so-called newspaper, so does that mean their opinions (or should I say, the ones they’re fed by Murdoch) are the correct ones which must always prevail? Dish up a constant barrage of propaganda from our ‘free’ press (which is in reality a bought, corporate press) and once enough people have swallowed it, it must be right?

Don’t accuse me of lying, because I produce facts to support my assertions. For a start, there is no evidence of a ‘dependency culture’. If you have any, please produce it. Otherwise try getting your head out of the sand and face up to the reality:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/myth-welfare-scrounger

Quite simply, John Mann is wrong here:-
http://www.johnmannmp.com/bassetlaw-mp-welcomes-milibands-attack-on-benefits-dependency-cu
His talk of “generations of families caught in this cycle” has been disproved, and I’ve posted the evidence at least three times on this forum, but you prefer to ignore it because it doesn’t fit in with your prejudices. Only 0.3% of households have two generations that have never worked. You’re right – “constant denials and lies will not make the truth go away”. Clearly not you, but anyone reading this exchange who is interested in the facts can see them on page 10 of this article:-
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/pdf/Mythbusting.pdf

You produced this article from 1998, quoting Blair in 1997 saying that “the welfare system must encourage work, not dependency”:-
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw41Dependency.pdf
Blair didn't say there was a 'dependency culture', and it doesn’t matter how many people talk about there being one, without some facts it just remains a myth put about by people like you, seeking to justify the disgusting way in which the Tories are treating some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Now you are getting desperate - this article is about New Zealand!
http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Final%20Report/WWG-Final-Recommendations-Report-22-February-2011.pdf
Since I know nothing about the welfare system in that country, and since whatever goes on there cannot support your still unsubstantiated assertion that a dependency culture exists in the UK, I won’t waste any time on it.

LOL. Finally, you really shot yourself in the foot with another article from 1998, which you obviously didn’t bother to read:-
http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/dependency-culture
It mentions “surveys which have shown that most claimants would rather be in employment, often for the intrinsic rewards of work rather than just for the greater income.” In the very next sentence it refers to “the myth of dependency culture”. Your source, not mine!

When you’re in a hole, I suggest you stop digging.

I read them all Ivan, that's why they are not from Tory rags as that would have given you more reasons for DENIAL. The evidence is out there for all to see with 2nd and 3rd generations of families who have never worked. If youre really saying a welfare/benefits dependency culture does not exist then you're losing credibility on all other matters too

"....generations of families who have never worked...."

Any chance of some facts to support the folk tales?

Any chance of some facts to support the folk tales?

Exactly. Perhaps if I spell it out often enough, it might penetrate even the thickest of skulls:-

Only 0.3% of households have two generations that have never worked.

Only 0.3% of households have two generations that have never worked.

Only 0.3% of households have two generations that have never worked.

Only 0.3% of households have two generations that have never worked.

The "evidence which is out there for all to see":-

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/pdf/Mythbusting.pdf

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/myth-welfare-scrounger

blueturando wrote:I read them all Ivan, that's why they are not from Tory rags as that would have given you more reasons for DENIAL. The evidence is out there for all to see with 2nd and 3rd generations of families who have never worked. If youre really saying a welfare/benefits dependency culture does not exist then you're losing credibility on all other matters too

So that is where Diddy Giddy got his idea from on how to get out of doing the job we pay him for, you show me any Tory MP that has calalus on his hands there more than like as smooth as a babys BUTT which proves none of them have ever done a days work in there lives.

bobby wrote:Those who we are speaking of either have blisters on the palms of their hands or have callus ridden bumholes.

I agree bobby, but one place they will not have callus bobby is their brains because they do not use them they do not need to as they are taught how to LIE efficiently.

Living in denial won't change the facts for you whatever you ideolgy is

blueturando wrote:Living in denial won't change the facts for you whatever you ideolgy is

"It Takes One to Know One" blue the Tory voters are so ridden with Ideology that they can not tell the difference between REALITY & FANTASY.

That is easy astradt1, any party that puts more money in the pockets of the effing wealthy that sells off things that do not belong to them so "ROGUES & VAGABONDS" is the ideal new name for the Conservetivepileof shit party

Please explain this one Red. You are so fixated with hating the tories you don't even know the facts...and when I point them out to you as I'm about to, you will just ignore them......Did your mummy tell you to vote Labour

Fact 1. The gap between rich and poor grew much wider under the last Labour Government

Fact 2. The top rate of Tax under the last Labour government was 40%....5% lower than the new rate under the coalition

Fact 3. The rich pay a higher proportion of the tax in take now than at any time under the last Labour government

Looking at the facts its easy to see that Labour are the party for the rich, but I know you don't deal in FACTS

Where should the Labour Party position itself?

I think the answer may be : " as far away from Eddie Mair as possible"...

Phil Hornby wrote: Where should the Labour Party position itself?

I think the answer may be : " as far away from Eddie Mair as possible"...

Absolutely right there, Mister Chairman. Eddie Mair has shown himself to be even-handed on several occasions. e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8895154/Feud-between-Robert-Peston-and-Eddie-Mair-erupts-on-Radio-4-PM-programme.html

blueturando wrote:-
You don't even know the facts...and when I point them out to you as I'm about to, you will just ignore them

LOL. Pots and kettles come to mind. And it would be nice if you supplied some sources (preferably not ones from New Zealand) for your assertions.

I’ll give you some facts (which, on past form, you will no doubt ignore):-

FACT - in the 1980s, the Thatcher decade, the gulf between the richest and poorest 20% in the UK widened by a full 60% – much the most dramatic widening of income differences on record.

FACT - on 7 April 2010, the Institute of Fiscal Studies released a document which said: “The tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality we saw under the Conservatives.”

FACT - just before he became Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg lamented that by 2007 the best-off fifth had seen their post-tax incomes rise so much that they were receiving 7.2 times the incomes of the poorest fifth, as opposed to 6.9 times as much in 1997. A slight increase in inequality, but not the 'much wider' gap which you claim.

FACT - in 2010/11, the incomes of the chief executives of the largest 100 companies in the UK increased by nearly 50%, while the average pay rise in the private sector was just 2.7%. In the public sector, the average rise was even smaller.

FACT - on 12 September 2011, the Institute of Fiscal Studies released statistics showing that the least well off 20% of British households are losing 6% of their income per year between 2011 and 2014 due to government cuts. Those statistics show that inequalities are increasing substantially again and in a far shorter period of time, not least because incomes at the bottom are now falling in real terms.

FACT - the 1,000 richest people in Britain have seen their average personal wealth rise from £336 million each in 2010 to £369 million by 2011, and then to £414 million by 2012.

Unlike your unsupported assertions, the above FACTS all come from sources listed on the following thread, which is the correct place for discussing inequality:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t709-does-inequality-matter

I am sorry to say Ivan you have wasted your precious time, blue does not just vote Tory he thinks like a Tory, just like the Maggot who took the PUBLIC ASSETS and sold them after the tax payer had paid for them and what did the tax payer get higher bills for gas & electric higher rail fares and higher phone bills and all those other phone companies that are trying to go higher than BT, NO wonder we are known as "Rip Off Brittain".

It was announced yesterday Coast Guard and Search & Rescue has been handed over to a Canadian Company so now our shipping is in danger and it will come to the point that no shipping of any kind will frequent the Brittish ports as it will be so unsafe for them to do so, they were not happy just to ruin of ship building not they have EFFED up our ports. :bom:

"It was announced yesterday Coast Guard and Search & Rescue has been handed over to a Canadian Company...."

Prince William's RAF helicopter group will presumably now practice S & R with model boats in the bath.

Youre right Red, Ivan is wasting his time...wasting his time making it up as he goes along. Even Labour MPs admit the gap between rich and poor grew wider during the last administration (see any question time or daily politics show) and rolling out one sided and incorrect statistics from the left will not change that....well maybe in your deluded minds it will, but like religous people you believe want to WANT to believe...not the facts

Do you think all those over the top banker bonuses started in 2010? Do you think the rich were paying more tax under Labour at 40% than they will under the coalition at 45%? Do the maths

So where should Labour position itself, well I cant see them placing themselves anywhere close to the left side as you and Ivan would want, so maybe you should find another party to vote for....unless you have no principles and want to vote in a party for the rich...again!

There is not too much which currently excites me about the Labour Party and there is a great deal for them to do to make a more clearly-defined place for themselves in the political arena.

However, the saving grace from which they can launch attempts to establish a distinct attraction in the public's eyes is that they are NOT the Tory Party -nor- unlike the LibDems - have they sought eagerly to prop them up as Cameron embarked upon his assault on the poor and disadvantaged...

Some of us may find ourselves wrestling with our consciences if the next General Election produces a hung parliament as in 2010. What price a Lib-Lab coalition if, as widely expected, UKIP shatters Tory prospects?

....or perhaps, to reflect the split personality of this divided island, we might end up with a Labour / UKip coalition.

sickchip wrote:....or perhaps, to reflect the split personality of this divided island, we might end up with a Labour / UKip coalition.

Sickchip I do not think Ed Miliband would even consider a Labour/Ukip coalition, coulld be Tory/Ukip coalition which would be real nasty.

"....Tory/Ukip coalition...."

(muffled laughter ) imagine the "Torier-than-thou" PMQs.

"Tory / UKIP Coalition"

Does anyone have details of current house prices in North Korea...?

2010 was only the second time since 1929 (the other occasion was in 1974) that our ‘first past the post’ voting system has produced a hung parliament. What makes anyone think it will happen again in the near future? The bookies seem to think the most likely outcome in 2015 is a majority Labour government, and UK Polling Report is currently predicting that that majority will be 110 over all other parties:-

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-uk-general-election/most-seats

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Where should Labour position itself? In the unlikely event that Labour doesn’t win a majority in 2015, I am sure it will take office as a minority government. I don’t think Labour members would swallow a coalition with the Lib Dems, after they’ve been part of the most right-wing government in modern history and given the Tories virtual free rein. It would be beyond credibility for the Lib Dems to be part of a government seeking to reverse much of what it’s just helped to vote into law, and I can’t imagine that over-promoted dipstick Danny Alexander saying “It’s all the fault of the Tories” in every interview he gets. As to Labour forming a coalition with UKIP, there’s more chance of hell freezing over.

Cameron is running scared of UKIP peeling off votes from the very large lunatic fringe of his party. That accounts for the noises he’s been making, previously about the EU and now about immigration. UKIP will probably do very well in the elections to the EU Parliament next year, just as it did in 2009. Yet in 2010, UKIP managed just 3% of the votes and it’s unlikely to win any seats at all in the 2015 general election. I suppose if it can create a ‘pocket’ of support somewhere, as the Green Party did in Brighton, it might win the odd seat, but it won’t be figuring in any coalitions.

An election campaign will surely focus the minds of the voters on the only real choice available – do they want more of this drift into corporate fascism from Cameron’s ideologically-driven, lying bunch of incompetent spivs, or do they want Labour to try to repair the damage that’s been done to this country since 2010?